This morning we figured out a method to capture video on SteamOS. Though it's not the most super-optimized solution for capturing gameplay footage (and the comments for that article have collected some excellent ideas on how to improve!), it was definitely good enough to capture a video walk through of SteamOS.

So sit back and watch as we take you through the menus and click all the options to see what SteamOS looks like. If you don't have a Steam Machine and haven't yet installed SteamOS, this is the next best thing to being there.

The only audience I think Valve is trying to access are those who are ignorant Why willingly limit yourself to a few hundred games?

Because Gabe Newell likes to annoy people like my friend today who claimed, seriously, that this would be bad for gamers because it would remove focus from one of the consoles. I don't know which one he's a fanboy of, but he's been living on triple speed these last two months.

There are supposed to be blocked off caves from the middle ages under this city I live in. I felt like finding one of the blocked entrances, and assume the life of the hermit in a cave so that I wouldn't have to share air with other people after hearing my friend.

Myself, I'm pleased that in a couple of years, I won't have to buy new hardware to get a new console. I can just stick it into one of my desktop computers. There's a few hundred quid saved right there. And in a couple of years, I bet there will be plenty more Linux games. We're just at the beginning now. Actually, we're not even at the beginning. We're in the locker room, thinking about going out to the beginning.

I just do not understand why you would install this over Windows/Ubuntu and Big Picture. What we see we already can do now and have had for 1 year now.

There really isn't any reason (so far). Installing Steam on Windows w/ Big Picture ... + Steam Controllers, gives you access to TONS of games that is not available on "Steam OS".

The only audience I think Valve is trying to access are those who are ignorant Why willingly limit yourself to a few hundred games?

Yes. Because the game market as it looks right now is exactly how it will look next year. And the year after that. And the year after that. And 5 years after that. And 10 years after that.

Can we start banning trolls yet?

Until Linux games on Steam by-passes Windows games on Steam, my statement is true.

Although there is one assumption on my part. That is assuming the Steam gamepad will have Windows drivers. <--- I may have to eat my hat if Valve don't create those drivers ...

No, someone willingly limiting themselves to a specific selection of games does not make them ignorant. It's a good thing to say if you're looking for flame bait. But really, one has nothing to do with the other.

And since you want to throw out the goal of Linux games on Steam by-passing Windows games, let me ask you this. Should Valve just wait until that happens, and THEN develop a platform for that market? There's a word for that in the business world. Short-sightedness.

Let them make something new and see if it works. Keep your FUD to yourself.

A lot of people are forgetting that Windows costs money. SteamOS does not. If somebody wanted to build a dirt-cheap HTPC for the living room and stream games to it from their desktop, I'd imagine that this would be the obvious choice. Even with the countless dozens of free Linux distros out there, it's encouraging that this is the one that comes tailor-made for the needs of a gamer.

The whole strawman "omg why would anyone install this on their computer" is so brutally oblivious it's painful. The focus of SteamOS isn't random people dual booting it with Windows. SteamOS is designed for "Steam Boxes" first and foremost. It's so manufacturers can make a console ready (just plug in the power and HDMI and you're ready) solution without paying for Windows. On top of that, if SteamOS catches on, there's no more need to worry about the recent development direction Microsoft has been taking their OS. If individuals decide to dual boot it on their own systems, more power to them. They're not the target market for the OS and all the crying and gnashing of teeth about them doesn't have anything to do with SteamOS.

I thought Valve, when they did the reveal a couple months ago, made it perfectly clear that SteamOS exists to function as two things:

1) An easy and free (so not possible with Windows) way to using PC hardware for gaming

2) Paired with in-home streaming, an easy and virtually free (i.e. cost of hardware that only needs to be powerful enough to decode HD video) way to extend PC gaming to the living room or elsewhere in a household that already has a gaming PC.

If you can't find a way for SteamOS to be useful to you, then by all means - ignore it! It is acting as an addition to the Steam ecosystem to increase options for users, not a replacement for anything. I think the Valve party line is that they don't know if it will catch on either, and it will be impossible to know for years. They're putting the product out now to get feedback early, iterate it for a while, and see if it finally sticks. I hope it also helps along the chicken and egg problem with Linux gaming...

In terms of business strategy, I think the accepted speculation is that Valve wants to have this option available so they have an out if Microsoft and Apple at any time in the far future decide to both disallow unsigned code from running on their operating systems by default, and require all applications to be obtained through the Microsoft/Apple Store by default. If such an apocalyptic hellscape never exists, then SteamOS will simply serve to further improve the likelihood that game developers will bother with Linux ports.

The only audience I think Valve is trying to access are those who are ignorant Why willingly limit yourself to a few hundred games?

This is baby steps in the long game. Steam OS is mostly for Valve's security. Windows 8 was the writing on the wall that Steam is not wanted in the direction Microsoft is headed. In the eventual situation that you can't run Steam on a Windows machine (already the case with Windows RT), Valve wants a robust, even superior alternative to gaming on Windows.

The first step was to bring Steam to Linux. This is great and all, but installing, using, and maintaining Linux is way more involved and complex than Windows; that and there aren't many big name games on Linux. Valve really wants gamers to seriously consider Linux over Windows. This means simplifying all ends of the Linux experience from install, updates, and using; improving video drivers; and bringing big games. Steam OS aims to bridge the divide over time.

Games on new platforms has always been a chicken and egg issue. For example, gamers want lots of big and good games on Wii U to merit the purchase, game producers want lots of Wii U gamers to merit the cost of making the game. Steam OS will attempt to side-step this issue via in-home game streaming where you can run Steam on your Windows or Mac machine and stream games to your TV. If lots of gamers start purchasing Steam OS machines for easy TV/couch playing of PC games, big studios will start bringing their games over. To further encourage developers/producers to consider Steam OS/Linux as the premier PC gaming platform, Valve is working to improve Linux development via better debugging tools, better graphics drivers and joining the Linux foundation to try to improve the platform as a whole.

Given this info, answering your original question, you buy Steam OS because you like Steam as a service, you have a big Library and you don't want to be stuck using Win 7 for the next 10 years. As stated, you won't be limiting your library. Chances are you'll keep using your gaming PC for a few years and get a nice couch experience via streaming until Steam OS releases start rolling in and your new gaming PC can be a beefy Steam Machine.

It's also potentially possible that there will be some casual Steam machines as well that could compete more in the micro-console space. Gamers may want to buy this if they're more interested in indie games but aren't really sold on the current micro-consoles.

Anyways, long post, but the point is, there will be lots of reasons for gamers to pick these up. The platform will continue to mature and it will attract more people with time. I wouldn't really expect it to seriously compete with the console generation until the post-PS4/Xbone generation though.

I REALLY don't understand the "it doesn't play all my Windows games" criticisms. Are people honestly really that short sighted?

Just as the very name implies, Valve's looking at the big picture. It's not about what SteamOS can do now. All Valve has any direct control over with the games they release on Steam is their own. Almost all of which have Linux version now, by the way. But they're setting the stage so other developers have other options. Valve, Blizzard, and a number of other companies have been saying for over a year now that the Windows platform has grown stagnant and slow to change, as far as game development progression is concerned.

SteamOS opens up other options. You might not agree with the sentiments of these companies, but you don't have to. If Windows is "good enough" for you, fine. Shut up, quit complaining, and keep using it. If however you want to see gaming development as a whole evolve on its own without being restricted by what Microsoft or any other company does, then SteamOS is that option. And it's only the first of many.

SteamOS isn't supposed to be a complete replacement for Windows or OS X. It's supposed to compliment them, and play games your other consoles won't. It's not there "yet", but it will be. This is supposed to be a sort of demo-reel to show the possible potential of breaking free from your Desktop screen. If you're blind to that fact, SteamOS isn't for you.

What about media? I didn't see anything, but I would like to know if steamOS supports any media playback. (stick a dvd in the drive and tell us the results =p).

If its seriously supposed to be for the living room, media support is a must.

Considering that Valve appears to be focusing this OS for install on licensed "Steam Machines" and that they're library is all digital, I would be surprised if the machines even have DVD/Blu-Ray Drives. I doubt this is high on their TODO list but I wouldn't be surprised if it was there. If you're installing Steam OS on your own machine, remember this is Linux. If you know what you're doing you'll be able to play a DVD even if you have to install/tweak some things.

More interestingly in my opinion will be to see if Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Amazon Instant Video, etc. will be supported either by the OS's browser, regular downloadable Steam software apps, or better yet, more integrated into the Big Picture mode itself.

The whole strawman "omg why would anyone install this on their computer" is so brutally oblivious it's painful. The focus of SteamOS isn't random people dual booting it with Windows. SteamOS is designed for "Steam Boxes" first and foremost. It's so manufacturers can make a console ready (just plug in the power and HDMI and you're ready) solution without paying for Windows. On top of that, if SteamOS catches on, there's no more need to worry about the recent development direction Microsoft has been taking their OS. If individuals decide to dual boot it on their own systems, more power to them. They're not the target market for the OS and all the crying and gnashing of teeth about them doesn't have anything to do with SteamOS.

If SteamOS will catch on , then they'll have to depend on premise that people would want to dualboot , at least until Linux game library catches up to it's windows counterpart.

Not at all.

Even if we were to accept the Linux game library being so woefully behind that there's no market for Steam Machines (more than 250 titles available is hardly lacking when compared to PS4 or Xbox One, but I will concede that many of those are non-AAA titles), there's still nothing to support that claim. The Steam Machine works like a console. For anyone so desperately interested in having both it and the Windows only games, there's the native streaming functionality built in. Run the Windows game in Windows on a Windows system and stream it to the TV connected Steam Machine, no dual boot necessary.

Then what's the point of the SteamOS you ask? Steam Machines. The only way to try make the arguments against it that are being made is to willfully ignore reality.

There are plenty of valid arguments about why SteamOS may flop, but it seems no one is interested in voicing those.

There's something really important that I haven't seen anyone really take note of yet.

SteamOS gives game developers a target with an active maintainer. To date, no Linux distribution has made *decisions* about a gaming platform target and had active full time developers over a period of years dedicated to refining and addressing issues about that target. It hasn't been neglected, but none of them has gone and written a brand new compositor just for gaming.

Linux distributions support choices, far and wide, make compromises for compatibility, and by and large *aren't* concerned with gaming performance. For instance, for years Linus' kernel rejected scheduler patches that would drastically improve the user interface experience at the expense of some almost negligible server timing accuracy. Valve could support such a kernel patch in their repository. Valve has already produced their own compositor for SteamOS, which is no small feat.

If a game developer wants to target Linux, now they can target SteamOS. They'll know, and can require, the specific platform choices made by Valve. If they want, they can go beyond that, but they won't have to guess or do multi-targetted research about what it takes to make a commercially viable product.

To date, it's been damned hard to develop for Linux, because "Linux" isn't just one thing. Some projects have emerged to help a lot, but this is huge. The likes of EA could target SteamOS without having a heart attack.

Why not spend a few bucks on a Elgato Game Capture HD? It it can grab any non-encrypted HDMI output you throw at it in full 1080p, with audio. I've used it to create training videos on HDMI devices and it worked flawlessly for me. Amazon has been running some good holiday sales in it, so it be had for less than $150 if you keep an eye out. Seems like a device any gaming journalist should have in their toolbox.

I just don't see the appeal of Steam boxes, to be honest. If they're trying to compete with consoles, consoles have them beat. If they're trying to compete with PCs, PCs have them beat. It just feels like a lukewarm product with no real direction. The only direction I see is Gabe Newell trying to power trip Microsoft over Windows.

Thanks for the preview video and walkthrough. I'm enjoying the coverage Ars is giving to SteamOS. Speaking of SteamOS, I like the interface. Clean, simple and fairly intuitive. I'm actually surprised they are still calling the compatible games "Linux Games". I would have thought they would rebrand it to "SteamOS Games" or something. Not that I mind of course. I think its great they are calling them what they are and giving a well deserved nod to the kernel that powers so many great OSes and technologies.

There are plenty of valid arguments about why SteamOS may flop, but it seems no one is interested in voicing those.

I can see a Steam Machine being a confusing device for non-pc gamers or those unfamiliar with Steam. They're planning these to be release in a model similar to Windows Phone where Valve develops the OS, pushes updates, and manufacturers need to rely more on hardware differentiation to compete. This seems a bit confusing to me as I really don't see the audience for Steam Machines to be very large at first. Won't lots of different devices make a potentially confusing "new" gaming platform even less clear?

Making their marketing message clear and consistent will be critical. We've seen some of this with their websites bit they'll need to start clearly pitching via 15/30 second ads.

Valve seems to be heading in the right direction on the software side but I'm concerned they're leaving too much to the hardware builders from different companies. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...

Why not spend a few bucks on a Elgato Game Capture HD? It it can grab any non-encrypted HDMI output you throw at it in full 1080p, with audio. I've used it to create training videos on HDMI devices and it worked flawlessly for me. Amazon has been running some good holiday sales in it, so it be had for less than $150 if you keep an eye out. Seems like a device any gaming journalist should have in their toolbox.

Because you need another computer for that. Do you not see the problem with that?

The whole strawman "omg why would anyone install this on their computer" is so brutally oblivious it's painful. The focus of SteamOS isn't random people dual booting it with Windows. SteamOS is designed for "Steam Boxes" first and foremost. It's so manufacturers can make a console ready (just plug in the power and HDMI and you're ready) solution without paying for Windows. On top of that, if SteamOS catches on, there's no more need to worry about the recent development direction Microsoft has been taking their OS. If individuals decide to dual boot it on their own systems, more power to them. They're not the target market for the OS and all the crying and gnashing of teeth about them doesn't have anything to do with SteamOS.

If SteamOS will catch on , then they'll have to depend on premise that people would want to dualboot , at least until Linux game library catches up to it's windows counterpart.

Not at all.

Even if we were to accept the Linux game library being so woefully behind that there's no market for Steam Machines (more than 250 titles available is hardly lacking when compared to PS4 or Xbox One, but I will concede that many of those are non-AAA titles), there's still nothing to support that claim. The Steam Machine works like a console. For anyone so desperately interested in having both it and the Windows only games, there's the native streaming functionality built in. Run the Windows game in Windows on a Windows system and stream it to the TV connected Steam Machine, no dual boot necessary.

Then what's the point of the SteamOS you ask? Steam Machines. The only way to try make the arguments against it that are being made is to willfully ignore reality.

There are plenty of valid arguments about why SteamOS may flop, but it seems no one is interested in voicing those.

If you've been following Valve's narrative on SteamOS/Steambox , you'll notice that they always drive the point about being able to run windows on the box or stream games from a windows computer . They know that the lack of any meaningul library will be a hinderance.

You know wtat else has more games than the PS4 and Xbox One ? Ouya ! But it does't really matter because at the end of the day people buy consoles because it has games they'll want to play not because of the numbers . I don't suppose anyone will to buy a $1000 Steambox and hope and pray that might have that game theyre looking for when they can get it on windows or console. The current Steam demographics says as much ; Windows 8.1 is hovering around 6% compared to Ubuntu's 0.36%

The whole strawman "omg why would anyone install this on their computer" is so brutally oblivious it's painful. The focus of SteamOS isn't random people dual booting it with Windows. SteamOS is designed for "Steam Boxes" first and foremost. It's so manufacturers can make a console ready (just plug in the power and HDMI and you're ready) solution without paying for Windows. On top of that, if SteamOS catches on, there's no more need to worry about the recent development direction Microsoft has been taking their OS. If individuals decide to dual boot it on their own systems, more power to them. They're not the target market for the OS and all the crying and gnashing of teeth about them doesn't have anything to do with SteamOS.

If SteamOS will catch on , then they'll have to depend on premise that people would want to dualboot , at least until Linux game library catches up to it's windows counterpart.

Not at all.

Even if we were to accept the Linux game library being so woefully behind that there's no market for Steam Machines (more than 250 titles available is hardly lacking when compared to PS4 or Xbox One, but I will concede that many of those are non-AAA titles), there's still nothing to support that claim. The Steam Machine works like a console. For anyone so desperately interested in having both it and the Windows only games, there's the native streaming functionality built in. Run the Windows game in Windows on a Windows system and stream it to the TV connected Steam Machine, no dual boot necessary.

Then what's the point of the SteamOS you ask? Steam Machines. The only way to try make the arguments against it that are being made is to willfully ignore reality.

There are plenty of valid arguments about why SteamOS may flop, but it seems no one is interested in voicing those.

If you've been following Valve's narrative on SteamOS/Steambox , you'll notice that they always drive the point about being able to run windows on the box or stream games from a windows computer . They know that the lack of any meaningul library will be a hinderance.

You know wtat else has more games than the PS4 and Xbox One ? Ouya ! But it does't really matter because at the end of the day people buy consoles because it has games they'll want to play not because of the numbers . I don't suppose anyone will to buy a $1000 Steambox and hope and pray that might have that game theyre looking for when they can get it on windows or console. The current Steam demographics says as much ; Windows 8.1 is hovering around 6% compared to Ubuntu's 0.36%

The whole strawman "omg why would anyone install this on their computer" is so brutally oblivious it's painful. The focus of SteamOS isn't random people dual booting it with Windows. SteamOS is designed for "Steam Boxes" first and foremost. It's so manufacturers can make a console ready (just plug in the power and HDMI and you're ready) solution without paying for Windows. On top of that, if SteamOS catches on, there's no more need to worry about the recent development direction Microsoft has been taking their OS. If individuals decide to dual boot it on their own systems, more power to them. They're not the target market for the OS and all the crying and gnashing of teeth about them doesn't have anything to do with SteamOS.

If SteamOS will catch on , then they'll have to depend on premise that people would want to dualboot , at least until Linux game library catches up to it's windows counterpart.

Not at all.

Even if we were to accept the Linux game library being so woefully behind that there's no market for Steam Machines (more than 250 titles available is hardly lacking when compared to PS4 or Xbox One, but I will concede that many of those are non-AAA titles), there's still nothing to support that claim. The Steam Machine works like a console. For anyone so desperately interested in having both it and the Windows only games, there's the native streaming functionality built in. Run the Windows game in Windows on a Windows system and stream it to the TV connected Steam Machine, no dual boot necessary.

Then what's the point of the SteamOS you ask? Steam Machines. The only way to try make the arguments against it that are being made is to willfully ignore reality.

There are plenty of valid arguments about why SteamOS may flop, but it seems no one is interested in voicing those.

If you've been following Valve's narrative on SteamOS/Steambox , you'll notice that they always drive the point about being able to run windows on the box or stream games from a windows computer . They know that the lack of any meaningul library will be a hinderance.

You know wtat else has more games than the PS4 and Xbox One ? Ouya ! But it does't really matter because at the end of the day people buy consoles because it has games they'll want to play not because of the numbers . I don't suppose anyone will to buy a $1000 Steambox and hope and pray that might have that game theyre looking for when they can get it on windows or console. The current Steam demographics says as much ; Windows 8.1 is hovering around 6% compared to Ubuntu's 0.36%

The whole strawman "omg why would anyone install this on their computer" is so brutally oblivious it's painful. The focus of SteamOS isn't random people dual booting it with Windows. SteamOS is designed for "Steam Boxes" first and foremost. It's so manufacturers can make a console ready (just plug in the power and HDMI and you're ready) solution without paying for Windows. On top of that, if SteamOS catches on, there's no more need to worry about the recent development direction Microsoft has been taking their OS. If individuals decide to dual boot it on their own systems, more power to them. They're not the target market for the OS and all the crying and gnashing of teeth about them doesn't have anything to do with SteamOS.

If SteamOS will catch on , then they'll have to depend on premise that people would want to dualboot , at least until Linux game library catches up to it's windows counterpart.

Not at all.

Even if we were to accept the Linux game library being so woefully behind that there's no market for Steam Machines (more than 250 titles available is hardly lacking when compared to PS4 or Xbox One, but I will concede that many of those are non-AAA titles), there's still nothing to support that claim. The Steam Machine works like a console. For anyone so desperately interested in having both it and the Windows only games, there's the native streaming functionality built in. Run the Windows game in Windows on a Windows system and stream it to the TV connected Steam Machine, no dual boot necessary.

Then what's the point of the SteamOS you ask? Steam Machines. The only way to try make the arguments against it that are being made is to willfully ignore reality.

There are plenty of valid arguments about why SteamOS may flop, but it seems no one is interested in voicing those.

If you've been following Valve's narrative on SteamOS/Steambox , you'll notice that they always drive the point about being able to run windows on the box or stream games from a windows computer . They know that the lack of any meaningul library will be a hinderance.

You know wtat else has more games than the PS4 and Xbox One ? Ouya ! But it does't really matter because at the end of the day people buy consoles because it has games they'll want to play not because of the numbers . I don't suppose anyone will to buy a $1000 Steambox and hope and pray that might have that game theyre looking for when they can get it on windows or console. The current Steam demographics says as much ; Windows 8.1 is hovering around 6% compared to Ubuntu's 0.36%

So why Steam OS? Here's my take on the situation. Currently the PC gaming market is dominated by MS Windows for a few reasons (1) if you release on the Windows platform you have a consistent environment and (2) are targeting the largest customer base.

A few games such as EVE have had a native Linux client in the past which stalled due to the lack of a installation base large enough and consistent enough to make it worth continuing development. The average user want to buy the game and play, either by inserting a disc or download, not spend a day recompiling and tweaking to get it to work.

Steam OS has the potential to create a market large enough to make Linux native games profitable and an environment consistent enough to make development feasible. If the Steam OS is cheap, easy to install and games just "work" a number of users may make the switch rather than upgrade to the next version of windows.

Lee Hutchinson / Lee is the Senior Reviews Editor at Ars and is responsible for the product news and reviews section. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX.